Public Safety Committee on Nov. 22nd, 2022

[Paula Clarke]

I'm just finding the motion number.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

We really need to stick to the amendments in order. If we go all over the map, we'll never get anywhere.

[Glen Motz, Conservative, Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB]

Move G-4, and then we can deal with the amendments.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Well, the amendment now before us is BQ-1.

Monsieur Fortin, is it your wish to withdraw BQ-1?

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

No, my intention is not to withdraw this amendment. If you rule it out of order, we will accept your ruling, otherwise I will move it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

You certainly may present it.

I merely asked you that because I had information that Ms. Michaud was going to withdraw it, but if you wish to move it, you're representing her at this time, so please do so.

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I have received no such instructions from Ms. Michaud. I shall therefore discharge my mandate by moving the amendment.

This amendment proposes to add to the definition of “prohibited firearm” in subsection 84(1) of the Criminal Code a new paragraph (c.1) referring to military-style assault weapons designated as such by regulation.

We believe it is important to have such a definition. This would prevent manufacturers from circumventing the assault weapons regulations by using new models.

This proposal is in response to the testimony you have heard at this committee, including that of PolySeSouvient.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Okay.

Go ahead, Mr. Lloyd, please.

[Dane Lloyd, Conservative, Sturgeon River—Parkland, AB]

Thank you, Monsieur Fortin.

I wonder whether we're adding a definition of “prescribed military-style assault weapon” under this amendment. Is there somewhere, in this giant package of amendments, a definition of what a military-style assault weapon is? Are we introducing this term but not prescribing what it actually means?

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

I could not answer my colleague's question specifically, but I do not believe there is a definition of what constitutes a military-style assault weapon, other than the reference we make to it which provides for its designation by regulation.

The government would have the option of passing a regulation defining what a military-style assault weapon is. This is the usual way of proceeding with this kind of provision. To my knowledge, there is no amendment that proposes such a regulation.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you, Mr. Fortin.

It's over to Mr. Motz. I'm sorry, Mr. Motz. I should have recognized you earlier.

[Glen Motz, Conservative, Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB]

That's okay. Thank you very much.

Mr. Fortin, I have to agree. I've been waiting for a government definition of “military-style assault weapon” for many years, ever since they did this order in council. There is no such firearm in Canada—none.

What they're trying to say, I believe, is that it's an automatic firearm, a fully automatic firearm that has a large-capacity magazine. All of those were already banned. They were already prohibited in 1977. If we're going to have firearms with full auto-capacity, they're prohibited. If we're going to have firearms with a large-capacity magazine, they're already prohibited. That would be the only thing I could see that would be “military-style assault”. If they're talking about a firearm that looks scary, firearms should never be classified by how they look; they should be classified by what they do.

With all due respect, I can't support this. There is no such definition of this type of firearm existing anywhere in Canada; hence the great concern Canadians had when the government came out with this term without a definition.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you, Mr. Motz.

We go to Ms. Damoff now.

[Pam Damoff, Liberal, Oakville North—Burlington, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I thank Monsieur Fortin for sitting in on this committee today.

We can't support this amendment, because we are coming forward with a more comprehensive amendment that would better define what a military-style assault weapon is. While we are supportive of the concept, I think our amendment—which we will get to, at some point—is more comprehensive and would provide a better definition than this.

I appreciate the spirit of where this is coming from and the work the Bloc is doing on this issue, but we won't be able to support this particular amendment. I also think it would mean that our amendment, which is coming up later, would not be able to be moved.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you.

Is there any further discussion on this amendment?

(Amendment negatived)

This brings us to CPC-1.

Go ahead, Madam Dancho.

[Raquel Dancho, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Mr. Chair, should I read it first and then talk about it? Is that how it works?

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

You can. However, you don't need to read it, because we all have a copy of it. It's in these—

[Raquel Dancho, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Okay. It's short, and even if it wasn't, it is:

That Bill C-21, in Clause 1, be amended by replacing line 15 on page 1 with the following:

“cision, an antique firearm, or any such device that is brightly coloured on 25% or more of its surface; (réplique)”

With this amendment we were trying to find a solution for the airsoft community to keep going and be given a chance to survive, given that this bill, should it pass in its current form, will likely mean the end of airsoft, if not today, then eventually. We were looking for some sort of common ground or a midway compromise, perhaps acknowledging that police have challenges with airsoft because they look like real firearms. Therefore, when people who are breaking the law have airsoft in their possession, police have to treat them like real guns. They may end the life of someone doing a criminal activity, or shoot them, when the person had, in essence, a toy gun.

I recognize the concern for police. I am a very strong supporter of our police services and want to support them. We are trying to figure out a way that we can keep airsoft alive while respecting the needs of police. We propose that we put in legislation that they have to brightly colour at least 25% of it, so that it's more easily identifiable.

It's not a perfect solution, Mr. Chair, but it is something. We're trying to find a midway solution here. That is the purpose of this amendment. It's an effort to support our airsoft community and our police at the same time.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you, Ms. Dancho.

Go ahead, Ms. Damoff.

[Pam Damoff, Liberal, Oakville North—Burlington, ON]

Thanks, Chair.

For clarity, proposed subsection 1(1) in the bill is not the one that prohibits airsoft. It provides a definition of “replica”.

We won't be able to support it, because the 25% of colour was not something that was supported by the police who testified, nor was it supported, quite frankly, by the airsoft community. We won't be supporting this one.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Go ahead, Mr. MacGregor.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

It's well-intentioned. I think we've all struggled with how to fix airsoft in this bill. While I won't support this, I think there are plans afoot to fix airsoft later on in clause 1.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Go ahead, Ms. Dancho.

[Raquel Dancho, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

To follow up on Ms. Damoff's comments, this was made in an effort to support the airsoft community. This bill is very much against the airsoft community. To be very clear, this Liberal government bill has been brought forward as an attack on the airsoft community. We were trying to bring forward an amendment to support the airsoft community.

If it doesn't pass, it is what it is, but we are trying to do what we can to support the airsoft community in Canada and to keep it alive and thriving.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Is there any further discussion?

(Amendment negatived)

That brings us now to G-4, which we've heard so much about.

There has been a question raised about whether it is in the scope of the bill.

The amendments put forward here add additional definitions to section 84 of the code and deem certain firearms as prohibited devices. These amendments, in my view, are in the scope, because they fulfill the broader spirit and the principle of the bill. G-4 makes further amendments to a section of the act that we're already amending.

The decision of the chair is that this amendment is admissible.

Go ahead, Ms. Dancho.